ERIC ED445985: What Happens When the Artistic World and a Teacher's World Meet?

/

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 445 985

SO 032 059

AUTHOR

TITLE

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE
NOTE

PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

Jacobs, Victoria R.

What Happens When the Artistic World and a Teacher's World
Meet?

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL.;
Spencer Foundation, Chicago, IL.

2000-04-00

26p . ; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April
24-28, 2000). For a related paper, see SO 032 057.

Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.

♦Art Appreciation; *Artists; Curriculum Research; Elementary
Education; Instructional Innovation; Integrated Curriculum;
♦Professional Development; *Program Evaluation; *Teacher
Role

California

ABSTRACT

This paper explores a six-year-old professional development
program in which "professional artists" help teachers learn how to integrate
the arts into their curriculum The specific goal of the program is to help
teachers learn to use the arts to teach the content areas of language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. The paper explains that for two
years each teacher is visited weekly by a professional artist who serves as a
coach, collaborating with each teacher to further the teacher's curriculum
objectives and professional development plans. The paper points out that
tensions often arise as the coaches try to help the teachers incorporate the
artistic process into an already full curriculum. It concludes by identifying
structural components of the SUAVE program (California) that seem to have
mitigated many of the potentially negative effects of these tensions and
instead have turned them into opportunities for teacher learning. (Contains
22 references.) (BT)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.

SO 032 059

m

oo

o\

m

Q

W

What Happens When the Artistic World and a Teacher’s World Meet?

Jacobs, Victoria R.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
/ CENTER (ERIC)

a This document has been reproduced as
• received from the person or organization
originating it.

□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position cr policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ERIC

2

.. jr

What Happens When the Artistic World and
a Teacher’s World Meet?

Victoria R. Jacobs
San Diego State University

American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
April 2000, New Orleans, LA

An important goal should be to expand the community of educators and education
resources to which teachers turn to inform and support their work, a shift from the
pattern in which teachers focus exclusively on their own work or the work of
those close by, with little external contribution, challenge or support (Ball &
Cohen, 1999, pp. 18-19)

Ball and Cohen (1999) underscore the necessity of involving experts outside the field
of education in the goal of improving education. This paper explores a six-year-old
professional development program that involves professional artists to help teachers
learn how to integrate the arts into their curriculum. Specifically, the goal of the program
is to help teachers learn to use the arts to teach the content areas of language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, this approach helps both teachers
and students develop an appreciation for the arts in and of themselves. For two years,
each teacher is visited weekly by a professional artist who serves as a coach. The coach
does not provide pre-determined art activities, but rather collaborates with each teacher to
further that teacher’s curriculum objectives and professional development goals.

This program has been remarkably successful both in terms of teacher learning and
teacher satisfaction, yet these teacher-artist collaborations have not been without tensions.
First, teachers typically work in a culture that supports autonomy and equality, and thus

The research reported in this paper was assisted by a joint grant from the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation and the Spencer Foundation under the Professional Development Research and
Documentation Program. The data presented, the statements made, and the views expressed are solely the
responsibility of the author.

3

teachers are used to working in their own classrooms without contributions or critiques
from others (Little, 1990; McClure, 1999). Similarly, when artists typically work in
schools, they do so autonomously as specialists (Goldberg, 1997). Thus, given the
unfamiliarity of teachers and artists meeting in collaboration, this professional
development program forces these players to negotiate what form the collaboration
should take, and in doing so, tensions often arise. Second, collaborations with
individuals outside of education require the melding of two professional worlds, each
with their own goals, values, and typical practices. Teachers exist in a world of content
standards, mandatory testing, and results-driven rewards and policies. These conditions
encourage teachers’ actions to be both time-conscious and objective-driven (McClure,
1999; Sparks & Hirsch, 1997). In contrast, artists value the artistic process, a process of
creation that requires spontaneity and time for exploration (Bennett, Goldberg, Jacobs &
Wendling, 1999; Goldberg, 1997). Tensions often arise as the coaches try to help the
teachers incorporate the artistic process into a curriculum that is already full.

This paper explores these two sources of tension that commonly occur when the
artistic world and a teacher’s world meet in collaboration. Before describing the arts-
integration program and investigating these sources of tension, two caveats are required.
First, these tensions did not occur in all teacher-coach collaborations or all lessons.
Rather, the paper highlights the tensions that arose most often and across a wide range of
lessons and teacher-coach pairs. Second, although tensions can create anxiety and
frustration, all tensions should not be viewed as negative. In many cases, tensions can
provide exceptional opportunities for growth, and research has suggested that a certain
amount of uncertainty or difficulty is necessary for substantial (vs. superficial) teacher

2

learning to occur (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Fullan, 1999; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Goldberg,
Bennett, & Jacobs, 1999; Thompson & Zeuli, 1999). Thus, this paper concludes by
identifying structural components of the SUAVE program that seem to have mitigated
many of the potentially negative effects of these tensions and instead have turned them
into opportunities for teacher learning.

The Professional Development Program: SUAVE

SUAVE (Socios Unidos para Artes via Education, or, United Community for Arts in
Education) is a volunteer professional development program that was developed by
Merryl Goldberg as a collaboration among the California Center for the Arts - Escondido,
California State University San Marcos, and several local school districts in Southern
California (Goldberg & Bossenmeyer, 1998). The philosophy underlying the program is
that teaching through the arts (vs. the more traditional teaching about the arts) can be a
powerful pedagogical tool for teachers to help students both further their subject-matter
understanding and be introduced to the arts themselves ( ASCD Curriculum Update,

1998; Goldberg, 1997). SUAVE currently involves 12 coaches and 120 teachers from
over 20 schools across 5 districts. For the first two years of participation, a school site
selects ten teachers to participate in inservices and weekly coaching sessions. The goal at
the end of two years is that teachers will have gained the ability and desire to continue

teaching through the arts. After two years, teachers no longer have a coach in their

\

classroom weekly, yet they are still provided with some limited opportunities to
participate in after-school workshops, attend inservices, and work with coaches in their
classrooms.

0

5

3

Inservices. SUAVE provides five full-day inservices per year for all districts
participating in SUAVE . During these inservices, teachers share curriculum, attend
performances, and learn arts-based activities from local and visiting artists, many of
whom are performing at the California Center for the Arts - Escondido (e.g., the CO AD
puppetry company, the Shakespeare Company, and Marcel Marceau).

Weekly coaching. The core of SUAVE is its coaching component whereby a
professional artist (the coach) visits each teacher’s classroom one hour per week for two
years. The coaches themselves are also supported through weekly meetings with the
program director. SUAVE is designed so that ten teachers per school site participate with
the same coach. The coaches rotate yearly so that each teacher has an opportunity to
work with two coaches. These coaches do not try to implement a set of pre-planned art
activities. Rather, their task is to collaborate with teachers to further the teachers ’
curriculum objectives and professional development goals.

In contrast to a traditional coaching model in which the coach would be the “expert”
and the teacher a “novice,” SUAVE views teachers as an integral part of successful
classroom coaching. While coaches bring professional knowledge about the arts
(e.g., techniques, creativity, multiple modes of communication, and a curiosity for
exploring the world), teachers bring professional knowledge about teaching and the
students in their classrooms (e.g., curriculum knowledge, classroom management skills,
age-appropriate expectations, and a rapport with specific students in that classroom).
These two players then collaborate to design lessons that teach curriculum through the
arts. These lessons are customized for a particular topic and particular students (vs. a
prescribed curriculum). They are also designed so that they are appropriate for the

6

4

comfort level and ability level of the teacher and coach involved. This collaboration
often creates instruction that is substantially better than either player feels capable of
producing alone (Bennett et al., 1999).

Data for This Paper

The data for this paper were collected during the first year of a three-year study
investigating SUAVE coaching as a professional development model. The research team
observed and videotaped four consecutive months of arts-integrated lessons (during the
weekly coaching sessions) in ten K-5 classrooms in four elementary schools. At that
time, these ten target teachers were in their second and final year of weekly coaching. In
addition, teachers and coaches from all SUAVE schools completed written surveys and
were interviewed either individually or in focus groups.

Potential Tensions

The SUAVE program has been successful in bringing together the artists’ and
teachers’ worlds in collaboration. Indicators of success include the program’s longevity,
consistent funding, and continued expansion (i.e. expanding from 3 schools and 30
teachers to over 20 schools and 120 teachers with more on a waiting list) (Goldberg, in
press). On an individual level, teachers have credited SUAVE with helping them grow
both professionally and personally. However, despite the program’s success, tensions
have surfaced for both the teachers and artists. The fact that SUAVE has been successful
in helping teachers grow suggests that these tensions did not serve as drawbacks but

7

5

rather as productive catalysts for teacher’s learning 1 . Therefore, the next section explores
both the successes of SUAVE and the potential tensions in these teacher-artist
collaborations. It is necessary to first describe SUAVE’s successes in order to frame the
subsequent tensions as positive learning opportunities rather than just sources of
frustration.

Success of SUAVE

SUAVE has provided teachers with opportunities to learn and at the same time
created an atmosphere of excitement, encouragement, and resources that promoted
widespread participation and a feeling of being professional and a part of something
special. Teachers typically described two ways that SUAVE helped them grow:
professionally and personally.

Professional growth. Through their participation in SUAVE, teachers have learned
a variety of artistic techniques that have helped them more easily teach using the arts.
However, most of the teachers gained much more than techniques; they grew to believe
inthe power of teaching through the arts. They no longer viewed arts as “fluff’ or
something extra that should only be included on a Friday afternoon. Instead, they
recognized the power of the arts to help students learn deeply. As one fourth-grade
teacher stated: “It is a great way to enhance what you’re teaching rather than take time
away from the core subjects.”

Teachers’ belief in the power of the arts was often strengthened by the success of the
arts with some of their students who otherwise struggled with school. For example, a
sixth-grade teacher described how the arts helped, in her words, “a particularly difficult

1 The SUAVE program was designed to enhance teachers’ understandings, although both teachers and
coaches have learned from their participation in the program. This paper focuses on the tensions that

O

ERLC

8

6

young sixth grader” become interested in learning science. This student typically did not
turn in work on time and often struggled with both reading and writing English. The
turning point came when he was given an opportunity to draw a cell seen under a
microscope. The teacher discovered that this student was a talented artist, and because he
had drawn the cell, he was motivated and able to write a high-quality reflection on how
the shape of the cell was related to the function of the organism. Subsequently, this
student turned in all his lab assignments on time. The teacher felt that the student’s
drawings had “bridged the language/content gap!” Similar academic successes with the
arts encouraged many teachers to change their planning techniques to include what one
first-grade teacher called “the SUAVE question.” She now asks herself: “Is there a way
to bring art through here that will enhance the concept and get the learning across in a
better way?”

In addition to enhancing the learning of academic content, teachers often identified

other benefits of incorporating the arts. This fourth-grade teacher reflected on both her

learning and her student’s learning after a coach had encouraged a resource student to

participate in a drama activity. This student, who normally would not get in front of the

class, was able to participate happily and successfully:

This was a magical moment for my student, but it was also a magical moment for
me. HEAVEN FORBID that I ever treat any of my students as LESSER - and I
mean that with all sincerity, yet when I saw the encouragement and confidence by
the leader [coach] in this student, he was able to do it. This moment just
reminded me - a wake-up call - to be sure, in my own heart, that I really believe
all my students are very gifted and talented, (fourth-grade teacher)

Personal growth. In addition to growth in their teaching philosophies and
techniques, many of the SUAVE teachers recognized that their own interest in the arts

influence teachers’ learning. Thus, coaches’ issues are included only as they relate to teachers’ learning.

O

ERLC

9

7

increased. For example, they were more likely to see a play or visit a museum exhibit.

Perhaps most striking was that many teachers grew to recognize the artist in themselves.

I grew up believing I had no artistic talent whatsoever and I grew up in a family
of sisters that did have a lot of artistic talent - totally convinced that I could not
draw, nor paint, nor create anything on my own - and my first year with [the
coach] completely changed my mind. She truly believed that every person could
learn to draw something, and I figured out the first day that if I didn’t believe that,
then I couldn’t teach any of my children to draw. And so I watched, . . .changed
my beliefs, and bought an art tablet, and took a few lessons, bought a few books,
and spent a lot of time trying to draw what [the coach] had taught me. And,
believe it or not, I really can draw. Now when I tell children they’re going to
learn to draw something, paint something, sing something, create something, I
truly believe that I can do it and they can do it, and then they really do accomplish
it, and I think that’s something I did not believe until [the coach] came into my
room, (first-grade teacher)

This self-recognition of teachers’ artistic talent was important because, in essence, it
allowed teachers to redefine who could do art and thus be an artist. This redefinition
helped teachers further integrate the arts into their curriculum and believe in the power of
the arts for all students. For a case study of one teacher’s discovery of her own artistic
identity, see the upcoming chapter by Jacobs, Goldberg, and Bennett (in press).

Despite these testimonies about professional and personal growth, SUAVE teachers
have also recognized two major sources of tension: (a) working collaboratively with
artists since teachers are used to working alone and expecting artists who serve as
specialists to also work alone, and (b) incorporating the artistic process into the teachers’
typical approach that is more time-conscious and objective-driven. These tensions were
not the result of an ineffective program but rather part of a successful program that used
tensions to help teachers learn.

10

8

Collaboration with Artists

The privacy and individualism of teaching was brought to the forefront of educational
discussions with Lortie’s (1975) analysis in Schoolteacher. Two decades later, while
many educators are promoting collaboration, researchers still find that individualism
dominates the culture of teaching (see, for example, Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hargreaves,
1994; Little, 1990; Little & McLaughlin, 1993). Furthermore, while all collaboration
challenges the prevailing norms, collaboration with artists creates some specific
obstacles.

First, while artists have long played a role in education, they have typically served as

artists-in-residence or specialists who visit schools for short periods of time in order to

complete particular projects (Goldberg, 1997) In this role, teachers and artists rarely

collaborate (for a notable exception, see Upitis, Soren & Smithrim, 1998). Rather, the

artists teach classes and the teachers, who are often not even present, have little or no

responsibility. One SUAVE teacher described this perspective as it was her initial

expectation of working with a SUAVE coach:

In the past, we’ve had an art teacher who comes in, and each time that she comes
in, she teaches the class, and you either participate and observe with her, or many
teachers graded papers or did other activities while they were in there. . .but the
[art] teacher did all of the teaching. She did the classroom management and it .
was hands-off. (4/5 multi-grade teacher)

Second, in our society, many believe that while everyone can appreciate and enjoy
the arts, only professional artists have the expertise necessary to create them. This belief
has worked against the average layperson believing in the possibility that everyone can
create art and that this process can be a powerful learning experience. Only recently have
educators begun to recognize that the role of the arts in education can extend beyond

O

ERIC

9

11

teaching about the arts. Based on the assumption that art is a process in which everyone
can participate, educators are now suggesting that the arts can also be powerful teaching
techniques to further understanding outside of the arts (ASCD Curriculum Update, 1998;
CDE Arts Work, 1997; Goldberg, 1997).

The teachers’ view of artists as a select group, the traditional role of arts specialists,
and the dominant culture of individualism in teaching all provided challenges for the
teachers and coaches who were asked to collaborate. SUAVE is designed as a
collaboration between two professionals, both with valuable expertise to bring to the
collaboration. In operationalizing this view of collaboration, tensions often arose for both
teachers and coaches.

Teacher concerns. Many teachers initially viewed the collaboration as simply an
extension of the artist as specialist rather than as a collaborative endeavor. For example,
this fourth-grade teacher still expected that the artist would have all the responsibility and
expertise. The only difference would be that she would try and learn from the artist
rather than using the visit as free time (as often happens with artists serving as
specialists).

With a coach I would have expectations of leading me, because the end goal that I
would see is, next year, leaving me where I can take and do on my own. So my
expectations were that the coaches [would] give me things and let me watch and

help me train and do all these things because now the coach has the

expertise. . . that’s why they’re the coach, (fourth-grade teacher)

Similarly, a fifth-grade teacher described how her view of the weekly coaching had to

evolve. At the beginning, she expected the coach to provide lots of techniques, yet the

coach did not have or give all the answers. Rather, the teacher and coach worked

together to make decisions and teach lessons. Initially, this teacher admitted that she was

12

10

disappointed that the coaching proved to be more of a partnership. However, upon later

reflection, she felt that through her participation, she was actually better able to take

ownership over the learning that occurred.

We [teachers at that school] were actually disappointed at first, because we kept
thinking “So when are they [the coaches] going to come in and teach us these
great techniques?” and that’s what we were expecting. . . . You think it’s going to
be a directed art lesson, sort of directed to me, as the teacher. But I’m looking
back and I think I’m glad it wasn’t that way because now I can take ownership on
what we learned . . . and I’m more comfortable. ... I feel like I probably learned
more this way than if they had said “OK, this is what you’re going to do. You’re
going to do A first, then B, then C.” (fifth-grade teacher)

The mismatch between the teachers’ expectations and SUAVE’s design of collaborative

coaching sometimes caused tensions. These tensions were not only felt by the teachers,.

but also by the artists.

Artist concerns. Several of the artists struggled with the teachers’ expectations that

the artists were the experts in charge. For example, one artist explained:

I don’t want to be in the position that says “I know more than you ,” or
“You’re going to follow me because I have an expertise.” . . . What I see is
I bring stuff. I bring things, ideas, and they happen. They happen more
out of some kind of an organic process more than me pushing anything.

(coach)

This artist particularly disliked the idea of hierarchy in a collaborative relationship.
Another artist expressed his general discomfort with being considered an expert. This
coach had expertise in drama, music, and visual arts, and considered himself to be a “folk
artist” (as compared to some of the other coaches who were more formally trained in the

We’re considered experts. People call me expert in music or whatever, but really
I’m not an expert. I’m not an expert in dance. I’m not an expert in much. I’m
not an expert in any arts areas - it happens that I have certain experiences, and
I’m sharing that with the teachers, (coach)

ERIC

13

11

It is not that this artist felt a lack of things to share with the teachers. On the contrary, he

was excited to share his artistic talents although, according to some of the teachers, he did

not always know how to best interact with teachers and students. Just as collaboration

pushed teachers out of their typical interaction patterns, coaching pushed artists beyond

their typical performance mentality toward a goal of helping others participate and learn.

For example, this teacher was concerned that her students were learning to appreciate art

by watching this coach perform, but they were not being given enough opportunity to

participate in the artistic process themselves:

He [the coach] comes out here and he entertains, and that’s fine, but after an hour
a week of him entertaining - 1 feel like it’s cutting into my instruction time; the
kids aren’t getting anything. The kids aren’t able to get things, but he does that
because he likes doing it. And, I’m not a part of that; we’re all watching the
[coach] act. (fourth-grade teacher)

Collaboration can be a difficult process no matter who the participants, but
collaboration between SUAVE teachers and artists sometimes resulted in tension because
of the inexperience (on both sides) in collaborative endeavors, and the differing
expectations and beliefs about the role of the arts and artists in education. The most
prominent tension related specifically to the arts was the tension surrounding how to
incorporate the artistic process into the teachers’ already full curriculum.

Incorporating the Artistic Process

Fourth-Grade Teacher: I didn’t know what he [the coach] was doing, where he
was going, and all of a sudden he’s grabbing me, putting me on the spot in front
of my kids, and I didn’t know what the purpose of this was, and where we were
going from, and . . . .yeah, I didn’t like it. ... I don’t mind doing it, but let me know
it’s coming, you know, as one professional to another.

Coach of the Fourth-Grade Teacher: I feel that I’m being used as a tool, used as
somebody that happens to be in her [the teacher’s] class... I feel that to her it is
more important to complete her curriculum so the students complete this part

rather than getting involved in the process. I haven’t seen her willing to get
involved doing things.

These quotes express a basic difference in the priorities of this teacher and this coach.
The teacher wanted to plan ahead and know the coach’s objectives. Other times, she
stated this preference even more specifically: “I would like to know what’s being taught,
and what the skill is, and what it is that they are supposed to be receiving.” This teacher
also did not appreciate being asked to participate in something for which she was not well
prepared. The coach, on the other hand, was most interested in getting everyone to
participate in the artistic process. He was much less concerned with the specific
curriculum objectives, and, in fact, took offense when the teacher made these objectives
the priority. These tensions were extreme in this teacher-coach pair and are described in
more detail in a paper by Goldberg and her colleagues (1999). However, similar tensions
were expressed less extremely by many of the teachers and coaches.

Teachers live in a world of externally-defined and often overwhelming standards,

tests, and curriculum. Thus the realities of their jobs encourage activities that are focused

on accomplishing specific objectives in as short a time period as possible. McClure

(1999) found that “the resource of time - that is, the lack of it to do the job well - is the

single subject mentioned most often by teachers when they talk about the difficulty of

improving their schools” (p. 64). In contrast, the artistic process in some ways

encourages artists to transcend or at least ignore time pressures. This second-grade

teacher, who is also an artist herself, described this tension between a time-conscious,

objective-driven schedule and the artistic process:

Before I started teaching, I was a sculpturist...and it’s like you forget everything
when you’re doing art. . .whether your child has been fed or whether you’ve
eaten. . .and I would just go into, it’s called flow - I think that’s the word for it -

13

15

into flow when I was using clay. And I would forget everything but the clay and
the experience of trying to make whatever shapes I was trying to put together. . .
But in a classroom you’ve got different concerns. As an art teacher - you want
everybody to be pretty successful and walk out of your classroom with this piece
of artwork or something. And that’s the way we were taught to teach, right? The
artist doesn’t have that same perception of time or the need that, at the end of this
lesson, everybody’s going to have a sculpture to walk out of there with, (second-
grade teacher)

The tensions that arose when trying to incorporate the artistic process into the
teachers’ already overloaded schedule played themselves out in several forms. Teachers
and coaches often disagreed about the level of importance of (a) artistic products (vs. the
artistic process), (b) task completion (vs. exploration), and (c) planning (vs. spontaneity).

Artistic products vs. the artistic process. Teachers often desired students to leave
with an artistic product - something that would show what the class had accomplished to
both the students and the outside world. In contrast, the coaches focused on the artistic
process. These differing goals became problematic when time was short and, in
particular, when there was a set date by which the artistic product needed to be
completed. For example, sometimes there were fixed performance dates for school plays
or projects that needed to be completed because classes were going off-track. In these
cases, the coaches often remained insistent on helping students experience the full artistic
process, while the teachers’ actions were typically driven by the logistical concerns of
getting the product finished. In fact, one coach explained that her goal was to help
teachers see value in the artistic process whether or not a final product was completed in
the allotted time frame. She recognized that when the public sees an artistic performance
or exhibition, they are only seeing the final product and thus may not consider the process
part of the artistic endeavor. She viewed SUAVE coaching as an opportunity to help
teachers understand and value the creation process:

ERIC

16

14

In the classroom, we’re emphasizing more the process than the final product, and
a lot of people can’t make that connection between the final product and “Oh,
there’s this evolution that occurs, and if we never get to the finished product, there
is something learned along the way. (coach)

Thus, while the coaches saw value in this creation process, teachers felt restricted by time
pressures and thus sometimes needed to be convinced. Nonetheless, some of the
teachers, such as this first-grade teacher, recognized this tension yet learned to understand
and value the artistic process itself:

Teachers get caught up in the product. I mean I think we know that we’ve done a
good job and we can show somebody that we’ve accomplished something when
we have a product and it’s all over and hang it up on the wall, maybe. But the
true learning really is the process and ... I think I grew up thinking you created
something and then it was done. It was over. It was perfect or not perfect, but
you left it alone. They [the coaches] never left anything alone. They kept going
back to it and adjusting or fine-turning or tweaking or whatever. And to begin
with, part of me went “No No No, we’re finished with that; let’s just leave that.”
But in truth, I mean that is the artistic process to go back and think about it and
feel about it for a while and then go back and change it if you want to change it,
or do it again but in a little different way. That was kind of new for me. (first-
grade teacher)

Task-completion vs. exploration. This process/product tension was seen not only in
terms of artistic products but also in relation to the completion of any academic task.
Teachers are used to staying focused on covering the curriculum. The coaches, on the
other hand, valued and enjoyed exploration sometimes just for the sake of exploration.
This tension particularly manifested itself when SUAVE coaches chose to spend time on
something that, in teachers’ minds, seemed unimportant and thus an unwise use of
instructional time. Teachers felt that these extra activities distracted students from
completing the intended tasks, and these time-consuming diversions created tensions for
teachers who felt overwhelmed by an extensive curriculum that was already difficult to

O

ERLC

17

15

cover in the time allotted. This fourth-grade teacher expressed this tension in the context
of preparing for a play:

I’ll never forget the day he [the coach] did the cow. That little girl - she was so
worried about her role and all she had to do was just stand there the whole time!
And he took about ten minutes to show her what a cow is! And [another teacher]
and I are looking at each other - like ten minutes! On a kid who doesn’t have a
speaking part?! But after that, this little girl had no more questions on what her
role was . . . and she knew how to be a cow. He took the time, he mooed, he ate
the grass, he rolled around - and the assistant superintendent came in! And [the
coach] was on the ground with her at her level, and as teachers, we never would
have done that. We would have said, “don’t worry about it.” But she really
wanted to be coached on how to be a cow and she felt so important - just as
important as the kids who had the speaking parts, just because he took the time
with her to elaborate and explain, (fourth-grade teacher)

This same teacher later acknowledged that these seemingly unnecessary detours helped

her recognize the value in taking the time to explore.

I think it [SUAVE] is teaching us to be free and explore. Saying to a teacher, it’s
OK to do, it’s not a waste of instructional time, it’s valuable time the kids need.
No one ever taught us that, and then through the artist . . . We’re saying, “What’s
he doing?! It’s taking him two weeks! I could have done that in five minutes.”
But then maybe it wouldn’t have meant anything to [the students], (fourth-grade
teacher)

Other teachers expressed similar changes in their beliefs. Despite the time pressures
inherent in teaching, they came to understand and value the artistic process of
exploration — even though this process requires time.

Planning vs. spontaneity. In addition to tensions surrounding the importance of
completing a task (vs. simply exploring), teachers and artists often clashed over the
importance of planning these tasks. Teachers are trained to carefully plan lessons, and
lesson planning then becomes an expected part of the teachers’ world (e.g., substitutes
and some principals require detailed lesson plans from teachers). Nonetheless, teaching
also involves a great amount of improvisation as teachers are consistently required to

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

18

16

make on-the-spot decisions in response to students’ comments, questions, facial
expressions and so on (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999;
Huberman, 1993). However, these decisions are almost always in pursuit of pre-
determined curriculum objectives, and the teachers themselves are in control of making
these moment-to-moment decisions. The coaches, on the other hand, felt less restricted
by these predetermined curriculum objectives and saw value in the creativity that can
result from spontaneity. Thus, they would often seize the opportunity to take a lesson in
a different direction than had jointly been agreed upon by the coach and teacher.

Teachers were often uncomfortable with these lessons that followed whatever direction
seemed to present itself, especially if it was the coach who determined what direction the
lesson would take.

Tensions also sometimes arose because SUAVE did not have planning time built into
the program structure, and thus teachers and coaches had little time to plan lessons
collaboratively. Furthermore, some coaches did not value planning time and therefore
did not work to fit it into their schedules. In short, while some planning did occur
beforehand, many lessons were created collaboratively between the teacher and coach
while the lesson was occurring. This spontaneity caused tension for many teachers,
especially those who were used to making detailed lesson plans. However, some teachers
grew to value a level of spontaneity:

When I first started teaching, I felt like I had to know that every lesson was going
to be successful before I attempted to teach it, and now I know that sometimes
being willing to take a chance and to try something that you haven’t tried before
and gamble that it’s going to work well, has opened up a whole lot of doors for
my kids. (4/5 multi-grade teacher)

19

17

Despite comments like the one above, teachers continually asked for more planning
time. Some coaches did recognize that spontaneous diversions, while benefiting students,
might “not have gotten to the core of what the teacher needed to do.” However, the
coaches resisted completely abandoning the spontaneous aspect of their work. One coach
articulated this resistance when he acknowledged that although he wanted to build more
structure into his coaching so that teachers were clearer on the goals of the lessons, the
materials, and so on, he was also concerned that in doing so, he might compromise the
artistic process. He stated, “I hope I don’t become a teacher . . . totally structured. ... I
want just to have the skeleton to play with and to build on top, and I feel I want to give a
lot to the creative process.”

The tensions surrounding planning have been and continue to be difficult ones for
both teachers and coaches. SUAVE has recognized the importance of this issue and,
therefore, has recently begun to provide time for planning. Currently, each coach is paid
for eight hours of planning time although scheduling the actual planning sessions remains
problematic. The hope is that planning sessions will give teachers and coaches time to
address some of the tensions in a more relaxed setting in which they will not
simultaneously have to deal with the pressures of teaching students.

Conclusions

The tensions of collaborating with artists and incorporating the artistic process have
challenged SUAVE teachers to risk trying new things in their classrooms. In doing so,
teachers have felt that they and their students have benefited. Thus, while this paper has
highlighted tensions between teachers and coaches, it is important to remember that these

tensions have not prevented learning from occurring. On the contrary, in some cases, it
was precisely these tensions that enabled learning to occur. For change to occur, Fullan
(1999) underscored the importance of “keeping anxiety in balance, simultaneously
provoking and containing it” (p. 61). The data suggest that the design of the SUAVE
program has helped to both “provoke” and “contain” anxiety thus promoting teacher
learning. The tensions have provoked anxiety in both teachers and coaches. However,
certain structural components of the SUAVE program have helped to contain this anxiety
and turn these tensions into learning opportunities. Specifically, SUAVE teachers have
highlighted the following key structural components of the program: long term
involvement, support communities, customized classroom coaching, and the program
philosophy of teaching through the arts. Other professional development programs
should take notice of these structural components since they have been successful in
helping SUAVE teachers learn from tensions rather than simply being frustrated by them.

Long-term involvement. SUAVE helps contain anxiety by allowing sufficient time
for tensions to be addressed and resolved. Teachers are given two years to explore
teaching and learning through the arts. Since teachers and coaches often arrive with
differing goals and priorities, this extended period of time allows them to negotiate
common understandings. Furthermore, each teacher and coach are paired for an entire
year. The long-term nature of this partnership provides an incentive for both participants
to work though any serious differences so that the relationship can be both productive and
enjoyable. Finally, each teacher has the opportunity to work with two different coaches
as the coaches are rotated yearly. This rotation exposes teachers to more than one artist,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

21

19

each with a different artistic specialty and personality, thus broadening the teachers’
experiences with and understanding of the artistic world.

Support communities. Anxiety can also be contained by the support provided by
others engaged in the same experiences. In SUAVE, both teachers and coaches are
supported emotionally and intellectually throughout the coaching process. First, since ten
teachers per school participate in SUAVE, each teacher has nine immediate colleagues
with whom s/he can brainstorm ideas and share activities, fears, and excitements.
Furthermore, teachers also develop camaraderie with teachers from other schools as
teachers from all SUAVE sites meet at the inservices. Second, all of the coaches are also
supported. Each week, they meet as a group with the program director. During these
meetings, they share artistic techniques and brainstorm ideas about potential lessons and
ways to interact with teachers more effectively. In addition, the coaches provide an
incredible support network for each other (for more information about the coaches
meetings, see Goldberg, 2000).

Customized classroom coaching. The tensions between the teaching and artistic
worlds are most obvious in the classroom when new ideas are being explored. SUAVE’s
weekly coaching pushes teachers to try new things, but, as one fifth-grade teacher
explained, “with a safety net” since the coach is actually present when the teacher is
taking these risks. Thus, teachers are held accountable for trying to teach through the
arts, but this accountability comes with substantial classroom support that helps to
contain anxiety. In contrast, many professional development programs provide great
ideas at inservices but then teachers are expected to implement these ideas without any
follow-up support in their classrooms.

ERIC

22

20

The customized nature of SUAVE’s coaching further helps contain teachers’ anxiety.
SUAVE coaches do not provide a canned program but rather negotiate with each teacher
to provide individualized assistance. Thus, a teacher can more easily see the relevance of
teaching through the arts in his or her own classroom. Through this customized
coaching, students in SUAVE classrooms experience some incredible lessons, and it is
the students’ unexpected excitement and learning that often encourages teachers to
continue trying new ideas.

Program philosophy of teaching through the arts. Given the pressures of an over-
stuffed curriculum, tensions should be expected whenever teachers are asked to add
anything else to the list of things they are required to cover. However, SUAVE’s basic
approach of emphasizing teaching through the arts (rather than about the arts) is a clever
hook for enticing teachers to work with the arts. Rather than suggesting additional
content, SUAVE helps to contain anxiety by presenting the arts as a teaching
methodology that can be used to teach the existing curriculum in a different, and
potentially better way. Interestingly, even though the program focuses on teaching core
curriculum through the arts, teachers and students have also often become more
interested in the arts themselves after seeing their power in other areas of the curriculum.
Final Thoughts

SUAVE has been a remarkably successful program in spite of, or perhaps because of,
the tensions described in this paper. As Fullan and Miles (1992) and others remind us,
risk taking is essential for real growth, and risk taking often derives from encounters with
the unfamiliar. For many teachers, working so closely with the artistic world is risky,
unfamiliar territory. This point was strongly and humorously made by one fourth-grade

ERIC

23

21

SUAVE teacher who described her coach as “someone from outerspace.” However, this
teacher, and many others who faced tensions, have learned substantially through their
participation in the program. The SUAVE program is structured to mitigate some of the
potentially negative effects of these tensions, and instead, turn them into learning
opportunities. If other professional development programs are to include experts outside
of the field of education (as Ball and Cohen (1999) suggested), they will also need to
expect tensions and consider how they will be able to promote learning from encounters
with “outerspace.” While SUAVE involves artists, other programs could involve
professionals from other worlds, each with their own set of goals, values, and typical
practices. In order to promote teacher learning, these programs will also need to develop
structural components that can both provoke and contain anxiety (Fullan, 1999). SUAVE
provides some suggestions for program design as well as providing an existence proof
that education can learn from encounters with other professional worlds.

24

22

References

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Curriculum
Update (1998, Spring). Arts education: A cornerstone of basic education. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners:
Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G.
Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bennett, T. R., Goldberg, M., Jacobs, V. & Wendling, L. (1999, April). Teacher
learning in professional development: The impact of an “artist as mentor ” relationship.
Paper presented at the 1 999 annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

California Department of Education (CDE) Arts Work: Task Force on Arts
Education (1997). Current developments in arts education. Sacramento, CA: CDE
(Delaine Eastin, Superintendent).

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a
learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 376-411). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. G. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 7 (10), 744-52.

Goldberg, M. (1997). Arts and learning: An integrated approach to teaching and
learning in multicultural and multilingual settings. New York: Longman.

Goldberg, M. (in press). Arts and learning: An integrated approach to teaching and
learning in multicultural and multilingual settings (2 nd edition). New York: Longman.

Goldberg, M. (2000, April). Uncovering the effects of systematic and sustained
programmatic support for professional developers: The role of structural support for the
coaches in professional development programs. Paper to be presented at the 2000 annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Goldberg, M., Bennett, T., & Jacobs, V. (1999, April). Artists in the classroom: A
role in the professional development of classroom teachers. Paper presented at the 1999
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.

25

23

Goldberg, M. R. & Bossenmeyer, M. (1998). Shifting the role of arts in education.
Principal, 77 (4), 56-58.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and
culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.

Huberman, M. (1993). The model of independent artisan in teachers’ professional
relations. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers ' work: Individuals,
colleagues, and contexts (pp. 11-50). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jacobs, V. R., Goldberg, M., & Bennett, T. (in press). Uncovering an artistic identity
while learning to teach through the arts. In D. Sherman & E. Mirochnik (Eds.), Passion
and pedagogy: Relation, creation, and transformation in teaching. Peter Lang
Publishing.

Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351.

Little, J. W. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Introduction: Perspectives on cultures
and contexts of teaching. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers ’ work:
Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 1-8). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McClure, R. M. (1999). Unions, teacher development, and professionalism. In G. A.
Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education { pp. 63-84). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, V A:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based
reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Upitis, R., Soren, B. J., & Smithrim, K. (1998, April). Teacher transformation
through the arts. Paper presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

26

24

®

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

1. UUOUIYILM 1 IWL-II 1 II iwni.w.1.

Title: •

Vw -fete /VltlCTTC W-6/IL0 MJO A-Tey \ateOz

^>0 JU.\>

AuthorfsV \1 \cfa(lAf\ (I-JA CO&<>

Corporate Source:

Publication Date:
4 -|toxto

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and. if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom

Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B

t I

□ □

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination In microfiche or other
ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper
copy.

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting Check here for Level 2B release, permitting

reproduction and dissemination In microfiche and In reproduction and dissemination In microfiche only

electronic media for ERIC archival collection
subscribers only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.

If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1 .

Sign
here,-*
O ' ase

/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as Indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microriche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception Is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

s *““i /„jku

Printed Name/Position/TUIe:

MlCTD/UA 3AC0ftS

Organization/Address: bO £tATe 0 tf i\J TV_

School, of TeAcAeA cot

5^00 CAMpA+J x>a .

11^

Ww- IVH.

b\